Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 394 (JHR)

Gopal Barelia v. State of Jharkhand

2013-03-19

R.R.PRASAD

body2013
Judgment I.A. No. 1140 of 2013 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the statement made in Para7 of the interlocutory application be permitted to be expunged as those statements have wrongly been mentioned. 2. In view of the submissions, let the statements made in Para7 of this interlocutory application be expunged. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 on the interlocutory application. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that initially this application was filed for quashing of the first information report of Mahila P.S. Case No. 21/2011 (G.R. No. 3894/2011) but, while the matter was pending before this Court, the Court, upon submission of the charge sheet, has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners vide order dated 21/11/2012, which has been challenged to be bad by way of this interlocutory application. 5. The prayer made in this interlocutory application is hereby allowed. Let this interlocutory application form part of the main application. 6. I.A. No. 1140 of 2013 stands disposed of. Cr. M.P. No. 1029 of 2011 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel for O.P. No. 2. 8. This application had earlier been filed for quashing of the first information report of Mahila P.S. Case No. 21/2011 (G.R. No. 3894/2011) registered under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Subsequently, upon submission of the charge sheet, when cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was taken against the petitioners that was challenged by way of interlocutory application. 9. Before adverting to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, the case of the prosecution as has been made out in the first information report needs to be taken notice of. 10. It is the case of the prosecution that before the marriage was solemnized the accused persons/petitioners asked for cash as well as jeweleries and other articles in dowry. Those articles and jeweleries were given and the same were taken to Kolkata where marriage in between Aditi and Manish Barelia was solemnized on 26/01/2011. 10. It is the case of the prosecution that before the marriage was solemnized the accused persons/petitioners asked for cash as well as jeweleries and other articles in dowry. Those articles and jeweleries were given and the same were taken to Kolkata where marriage in between Aditi and Manish Barelia was solemnized on 26/01/2011. Immediately, thereafter all the accused persons/petitioners started subjecting Aditi to torture physically as well as mentally on account of non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry. At one point of time, when father and grandfather of Aditi came to Kolkata, the accused persons/petitioners put forth the demand of Rs. 4 lakhs. In spite of money being given, the accused persons went on subjecting her to torture. Thereafter, also the demand was put forth. On such allegation, the informant, the mother of the girl Aditi, lodged a case at Ranchi which was registered as Mahila P.S. Case No. 21/2011 (G.R. No. 3894/2011) registered under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Upon submission of the charge sheet, when cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 498 A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was taken against the petitioners, the same was challenged. 11. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that whatever allegations have been levelled against the petitioners, all those allegations get falsified from the information given by Aditi in Lake Town Police Station at Kolkata. In this regard it was submitted that everything was going fine as there was cordiality in between the husband and wife in but the trouble gets started from 15/07/2011, when Aditi fell ill. The petitioners started asking about the disease she was suffering from and also as to whether she has been receiving treatment from before. That enquiry annoyed the parents of Aditi and simply for that reason they wanted to take back to Aditi to Ranchi but when she was not allowed to be taken back, a first information report was lodged on 09/08/2011. On case being lodged, a news item was published in the daily newspaper on 12/08/2011. That enquiry annoyed the parents of Aditi and simply for that reason they wanted to take back to Aditi to Ranchi but when she was not allowed to be taken back, a first information report was lodged on 09/08/2011. On case being lodged, a news item was published in the daily newspaper on 12/08/2011. On seeing that news item, Aditi the daughter of the informant, made a complaint before the Inspector Incharge of Lake Town Police Station stating therein that whatever allegations were published in the newspaper against her husband and the members of her in-laws family, all those allegations are false and those allegations have been levelled to malign the prestige of her husband and in-laws and, therefore, a request was made to take necessary action against the person who was instrumental in getting the news item published. Thereafter, the police came to Kolkata and brought Aditi back to Ranchi on 20th August, 2011 and after more than seven months statements of Aditi has been recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C. on 28/04/2012, wherein she has alleged that she was subjected to torture on account of non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry but all those occurrence are said to have taken place at Kolkata and, therefore, it is quite obvious that no overt act constituting offence under Section 498 A IPC committed at Ranchi and, therefore, the Court at Ranchi committed illegality in taking cognizance of the offence and, thereby, the order taking cognizance is fit to be quashed. 12. As against this, Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel appearing for O.P. No. 2 submits that apart from the offence under Section 498 A IPC, cognizance has also been taken for the offences under Section 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act as it is specific case of the prosecution that before marriage dowry was demanded and in order to fulfill the demand, cash, jeweleries, utensils and other articles were given and that apart allegations have also been made in the first information report that the daughter of the informant was subjected to cruelty on account of non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry, and that whatever plea of innocence is being taken on the basis of the letter those documents, cannot be looked into at this stage and, therefore, under the circumstances, the order taking cognizance can never be said to be illegal and, hence, it need no interference. 13. Having heard counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, I do find that there has been allegation, in the first information report, of commission of the offence under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The cause of action constituting offence under Section 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, seems to have accrued at Ranchi and, thereby, it cannot be said that no cause of action has ever accrued at Ranchi. Further, allegation made in the first information report prima facie does constitute offence under Section 498-A IPC, and that whatever plea has been taken by referring to the letter that plea pertains to defense of the petitioners which would not be available to them at this stage though it may be available to the petitioners at an appropriate stage. Therefore, I do not find any illegality with the order taking cognizance and, hence, the order taking cognizance never warrants to be interfered with. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed. 14. Before parting with this order it be stated that whatever observation has been made that has been made for the purpose of disposal of this case and, hence, it may not be prejudiced to the case of the petitioners.